Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.

[geekpower]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.

i don't have an opinion on mid-levels, but for L's i agree the biggest opportunities are with the primes. if new a new 85L and 135L are in the works, then 24L and 50L should probably be next, and the addition of an 18 or 20L would be great too.

 

[ahsanford]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.

i don't have an opinion on mid-levels, but for L's i agree the biggest opportunities are with the primes. if new a new 85L and 135L are in the works, then 24L and 50L should probably be next, and the addition of an 18 or 20L would be great too.

Sigma sells a 120-300 f/2.8 OS if memory serves. They were gunning for the longer and as quick as the 70-200 2.8 lenses, but I recall it was not a cheap or small lens.

If I had to rank the primes that needed the most urgent attention:

[list type=decimal]
[*]50mm f/1.4 USM --> 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM

[a cavernous gap between #1 and the rest]


[*]400mm f/5.6 --> modernize it, give it IS, put it on a diet, etc.
[*]50L --> likely a major overhaul to a big pickle jar like the 50 Art / 55 Otus, give it the BR gunk
[*]85L --> IS, BR gunk, internal focusing, AF speed upgrade, possibly upgrade the focus by wire to proper FTM mechanical focusing?
[*]The great wide/fast/low-coma astro lens
[*]180L Macro --> no idea what it's missing as I don't shoot with this or read much about it, but many people want a longer-than-100mm macro option for more working distance with more skittish or more dangerous subjects.
[/list]

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Point is as a SYSTEM, the mid primes are not what they need to be in 2017, and the 50L/85L let it down in some respects.

Interesting way to slice it, RF. My take, as a system (EF only)

the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.

as soon as canon touches the 400/5.6L the price will jump immediately. part of the charm of that lens is the price. it will have less of a charm if it's around 2500 or so.

 

[rrcphoto]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400

you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?

 

[ahsanford]

the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.

There are fans of that lens on this forum, but unlike the 135 f/2L, the 200 f/2.8L doesn't have IS and isn't markedly better than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that so many folks already own. It's a forgotten great value L lens much like the 17-40L was for so long.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.

i don't have an opinion on mid-levels, but for L's i agree the biggest opportunities are with the primes. if new a new 85L and 135L are in the works, then 24L and 50L should probably be next, and the addition of an 18 or 20L would be great too.

Sigma sells a 120-300 f/2.8 OS if memory serves. They were gunning for the longer and as quick as the 70-200 2.8 lenses, but I recall it was not a cheap or small lens.

If I had to rank the primes that needed the most urgent attention:

[list type=decimal]
[*]50mm f/1.4 USM --> 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM

[a cavernous gap between #1 and the rest]


[*]400mm f/5.6 --> modernize it, give it IS, put it on a diet, etc.
[*]50L --> likely a major overhaul to a big pickle jar like the 50 Art / 55 Otus, give it the BR gunk
[*]85L --> IS, BR gunk, internal focusing, AF speed upgrade, possibly upgrade the focus by wire to proper FTM mechanical focusing?
[*]The great wide/fast/low-coma astro lens
[*]180L Macro --> no idea what it's missing as I don't shoot with this or read much about it, but many people want a longer-than-100mm macro option for more working distance with more skittish or more dangerous subjects.
[/list]

- A

I'd rank what they don't even have before them.

17 and 20 or 21L's

I'd also like to see before some of those remakes some APS-C love in either EF-S or EF-M or both. f4 holy trinities of 10-22, 15-45, 45-150mm

 

[ahsanford]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400

you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?

400 f/4 and shooting at all longer than 400mm without a TC (with Canon glass) are the two explosive inflection points for price.

400 f/5.6 --> $1200
400 f/4 --> $6900 and up
Anything longer than 400mm at any speed without a teleconverter --> $9000 and up

An inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 IS or (more likely) a 150- or 200-600 f/5.6 zoom is sorely needed. For reasons we've covered ad nauseam in other threads, what 'inexpensive' means probably is probably 2x what Sigma and Tamron are currently charging for their 150-600 lenses, because I believe they pull some f/6.3 shenanigans on the long end that Canon will never do with an EF lens.

- A

 

[slclick]

the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.

There are fans of that lens on this forum, but unlike the 135 f/2L, the 200 f/2.8L doesn't have IS and isn't markedly better than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that so many folks already own. It's a forgotten great value L lens much like the 17-40L was for so long.

- A

However, it is light and it's black! I enjoyed my copy when I had one.

 

[rrcphoto]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400

you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?

400 f/4 and shooting at all longer than 400mm without a TC (with Canon glass) are the two explosive inflection points for price.

400 f/5.6 --> $1200
400 f/4 --> $6900 and up
Anything longer than 400mm at any speed without a teleconverter --> $9000 and up

An inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 IS or (more likely) a 150- or 200-600 f/5.6 zoom is sorely needed. For reasons we've covered ad nauseam in other threads, what 'inexpensive' means probably is probably 2x what Sigma and Tamron are currently charging for their 150-600 lenses, because I believe they pull some f/6.3 shenanigans on the long end that Canon will never do with an EF lens.

- A

again, that's not faster than 400/5.6 on the long end of the 100-400 which was my comment.

 

[geekpower]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400

you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?

400 f/4 and shooting at all longer than 400mm without a TC (with Canon glass) are the two explosive inflection points for price.

400 f/5.6 --> $1200
400 f/4 --> $6900 and up
Anything longer than 400mm at any speed without a teleconverter --> $9000 and up

An inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 IS or (more likely) a 150- or 200-600 f/5.6 zoom is sorely needed. For reasons we've covered ad nauseam in other threads, what 'inexpensive' means probably is probably 2x what Sigma and Tamron are currently charging for their 150-600 lenses, because I believe they pull some f/6.3 shenanigans on the long end that Canon will never do with an EF lens.

- A

again, that's not faster than 400/5.6 on the long end of the 100-400 which was my comment.

"affordable" when talking big teles probably means under $3k, and no, that isn't going to happen in a zoom at 400/4, but it ought to be possible at 300/4, right?

 

[slclick]

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400

you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?

400 f/4 and shooting at all longer than 400mm without a TC (with Canon glass) are the two explosive inflection points for price.

400 f/5.6 --> $1200
400 f/4 --> $6900 and up
Anything longer than 400mm at any speed without a teleconverter --> $9000 and up

An inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 IS or (more likely) a 150- or 200-600 f/5.6 zoom is sorely needed. For reasons we've covered ad nauseam in other threads, what 'inexpensive' means probably is probably 2x what Sigma and Tamron are currently charging for their 150-600 lenses, because I believe they pull some f/6.3 shenanigans on the long end that Canon will never do with an EF lens.

- A

again, that's not faster than 400/5.6 on the long end of the 100-400 which was my comment.

"affordable" when talking big teles probably means under $3k, and no, that isn't going to happen in a zoom at 400/4, but it ought to be possible at 300/4, right?

The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)

 

[geekpower]

The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)

indeed, and that makes it an attractive option for those who don't mind it being a prime.

but to extrapolate from the price difference between the 70-200/f4L IS and the 70-200/f2.8L IS II (not scientific at all, but food for thought), making the 70-300/f4-5.6L IS a stop faster would take it from $1359 to $2288. still in the same ballpark as the 70-200/2.8 plus 1.4x, but without the need to make lens changes in the field.

 

[SteveM]

Pardon the sarcasm, but I would say the 24-105mm f4 has the most need for updating.

 

[tron]

Pardon the sarcasm, but I would say the 24-105mm f4 has the most need for updating.

Ehhmmm it is not exactly sarcasm. I also believe this has been mentioned already in this thread

 

[chrysoberyl]

The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)

indeed, and that makes it an attractive option for those who don't mind it being a prime.

but to extrapolate from the price difference between the 70-200/f4L IS and the 70-200/f2.8L IS II (not scientific at all, but food for thought), making the 70-300/f4-5.6L IS a stop faster would take it from $1359 to $2288. still in the same ballpark as the 70-200/2.8 plus 1.4x, but without the need to make lens changes in the field.

Now that is intriguing! a 70-300 2.8-4 L would tempt me, if it would take extenders, not extend as does the current version and be sharper on the long end. But my preference would be a 300 or 400mm prime.

 

[SteveM]

I'd like to see a little improvement on the 85mm 1.8, namely the fringing that occurs between 1.8 and 2.2. Very good lens otherwise.

 

[rfdesigner]

I'd like to see a little improvement on the 85mm 1.8, namely the fringing that occurs between 1.8 and 2.2. Very good lens otherwise.

Go and try the 100 f2.0, unlike the 85 f.8, it's performance doesn't dive anything like as much wide open. IMHO the 85 @2.8 is about equal to the 100 @2.0

 

[Antono Refa]

Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does such a good job for me, I sold the 85mm f/1.8. The zoom's IQ & IS make me pass on the extra stop, weight, and switching lenses.

I keep the 50mm f/1.4 because it has a two stops advantage on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and three on the EF 24-70/105mm f/4 IS.

Actually, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM ART is cheap enough, that I'm considering not waiting for Canon to make the upgrade, or buy the Sigma.

 

[YuengLinger]

ef 50mm f/2 Macro. It has been discontinued. Works great for food!

 

[canonman123]

i relalise they are 'noob' lenses, but i would like to see an updating of either or both of the 18-135 and 18-200.

whilst the latter reportedly has worse performance than the the former i got rid of the 18-135 because it doens't have a way to lock the lens so it kept extending when hanging at my side - may sound trivial but it became really annoying, and i didn't fancy messing about with elastic bands as some advised. Plus i wanted the longer zoom.

i know all about the limits on quality but the versatility for certain situations is so useful.

i realise 200's pushing it so may something inbetween, say an 18-175, (with lens lock!) might be the answer?

also while we're here, any suggestion on other lenses that do a better job? i read about the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM C lens, but not sure it's advantages are sufficiently better than the Canon to warrant the purchase?